E 336 
.P589 
Copy 1 



^!^ 









OJLcu^.^^'^S.u.wc^ 






S^jiXU/v 



-u tf 



uv 






S/woM (2^ 



«os 



^fj 

















Book ^ ? ? 3 



LETTER 3/2. 

TO THE ^ 



HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 

A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

ON THE 

PRESENT STATE of our NATIONAL AFFAIRS. 

WITH REMARKS 

UPON 

MR. PICKERING'S LETTER 

TO THE 

GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 



BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 



FROM 'THE SECOND BOSTON EDiriONa 

HALLOWELL : 

PRINTED AKD PUBLISHED BY NATHANIEI4 CHEEVER, 

1808. 



£"336 






A 

LETTER 



TO THE 



HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 



WASHINGTON, MARCH 31, 1808. 
Pear Sir, 

I HAVE received from one of my friends in Boston a 
copy of a printed pamphlet, containing a letter from Mr. Pickering 
to the Governor of the Commonwealth, intended for communication 
to the Legislatm'e of the State, dming their Session, recently con-r 
eluded. But this object not having been accomplished, it appears 
to have been published by some friend of the writer, whose induce- 
ment is stated^ no doubt truly, to have been the importance of the 
matter discussed in it, and the high respectability of the author. 

The subjects of this Iptter are the Embargo, and the differences 
in controversy betw&en our Country and Great Britain — Subjects 
upon which it is my misfortune, in the discharge of my duties as a 
Senator of the United States, to differ from the opinions of my Col- 
league. The place where the question upon the first of them, iu 
common with others of great national concern, was between him 
and me, in our official capacities a proper object of discussion, was 
the Senate of the Union^r-There, it was discussed, and, as far as 
the constitutional authority of that body extended, there it was de- 
cided—Having obtained '^like. the concurrence of the other branch 
pf the national Legislature, and the approbation of the President, it 
became the Law of the Land, and as such I have considered it en- 
titled to the respect and obedience of ^very virtuous citizen. 

From these decisions however, the letter in question is to be 
considered in the nature of an appeal ; in the first instance, to our 
Cj?n>mon constituents, the Legislature of the State— and in the sec- 
ond, l?y tJie publication, to the people. To both these tribunals I 
shall always hold myself accountable for every act of my public 
life. Yet, were my own political character alone implicated in the 
course which has in this instance been pursued, I should have for- 
borne all notice of the proceeding, and have. left my conduct in this, 
as in other cases, to the candour and discretion of my Country. 

But to this species of appeal, thus conducted, there are some ob- 
jections on Constitutional grounds, which I deem it my duty to 
mention for the consideration of the public. On a statement of cir- 
cumstances attending a very important act of national legislation, a 
statement which the writer undoubtedly believed to be truC) but 



4 

which comes only from one side of the question, and which, lex-: 
pect to prove in the most essential points erroneous, the writer with 
the most animated tone of energy, calls for the interfiositionoi the 
commercial States, and asserts that " nothing but their sense, clear- 
ly and emphatically expressed, will save thpm from ruin.'* This 
solemn and alarming invocation is addressed to the Legislature of 
Massachusetts, at ^o late a period of their- Sessipn, ..thathadit been 
received by them^ they must have been compelled eitk&f to act 
upon the views of this representation, v/ithout hearing the counter 
statement of the other side, or seemingly to disregard the pressing 
interests of their constituents, by neglecting an admonition of the 
most serious complexion. Considering the application as a prece- 
dent, its tendency is dangerous to the public. For on the first sup- 
position, that the Jtegislature had been precipitated to act on the 
spur of such an instigation, they must have acted on imperfect in-, 
formatioa, and under an excitpment> not rem.arkably adapted to the 
composure of safe deliberation. On the second they would have 
been exposed to imjust imputations, which at the eve of an elec- 
tion might have operated in the most ineq^uitable manner upon the 
characters of individual members. .l.T; 

The interposition of one or mare State; Legislatures, to controul 
the exercise of the powers, vested by the general Constitution in 
the Congress of the United States, is at least of questionable pol- 
icy. The views of a State Legislature are naturally and properly 
limited in a considerable degree to the particular interests of the 
State. The very object and formation of the J^ationaL deliberative 
assemblies was for the compromise and conciliation of the inter- 
ests oi all — =of the vv'hole natipn. If the appeal from the regular, 
legitimate measures of the bitxly where* the whole nation is repre- 
sented, be proper to one State Legislature,,it must be so to another. 
If the commercial States ^re c»Ued to jn^'pose on one hand, v/ill 
not the agricultural States be with equal propriety summoned to 
interpose on the other ? If the East. is stimulated against the West, 
and the Northern and Southern Sections are urged into collision 
with each other, by appeals from the acts of Congress to the respec- 
tive' States— .f7^ what are these afip,eah to end ? ■ , 

It is undoubtedly the right, and may often become the duty ^ 
a State Legislature, to address that of the Nation, Vitli the expres- 
sion of its v/ishes, in reg:ai'd to interests peculiarly concerning the 
State itself Nor shall I question the right of every member of 
the great federative compact to declare its own sense of measures 
interesting to the nation at large. But whenever the case occurs 
that this sense should be " clearly and emphatically"* expressed, 
it ought surely to be predicated upon a full and impartial consid- 
eration of the whole subject— not under the stimulus of a one 
sided representation-— -far less upon the impulse of conjectures and 
suspicions. It is not through the medium of personal sensibility, 
nor of party bias, nor of professional occupation, nor of geograph-^ 



s 

kal position, that t/:e %\>hole Truth C£in be discerned, of questions in- 
volving the rights and interests of this extensive Union, When 
their discussion is urged upon a State Legislature, the first call 
upon its members should be to cast all their feelings and interests 
as the Citizens of a single State into the common stock of the Na- 
tional concern. 

Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is made from the 
Councils of the Nation, to those of a single State be one, upon 
which the representation of the State had been divided, and the 
member who found himself in the minority, felt impelled by a 
sense of ciuty to invoke the interposition of his Constituents, it 
would seem that both in justice to them, and in candour to his col- 
league, some notice of such intention should be given to him, that 
he too might be prepared to exhibit his views of the subject upon 
which the difference of opinion had taken place ; or at least that 
the resort should be had, at such a period of time as would leave it 
within the reac^i of possibility for his representations to be receiv- 
ed by their common ConsLkuGTita, before they would be compelled 
to decide on the merits of the case. 

The fairness and propriety of tliis course of proceeding must be 
so obvious, that it is difficult to conceif^ of the propriety of any 
pther. Yet it presents another inconvenience which must neces- 
sarily result from this practice of appellate legislation-^When one 
pf the Senators f]?om a State proclaim? to his constituents that a 
particular measure, or system qf measuresi?if,hich has received the 
vote and support of his colleague, i^^e peniicious and destructive 
to those interests which both arc bound by tl* most sacred of ties, 
with ^eal and fidelity to promote, the denunciation of the measures 
amounts to little less than a clenunciation of the man. The advo- 
cate of a policy thus rem-pbated must feci jiiimself summoned by 
every motive of self-defern^e to vindicate liis co *^\'^'ct : and if his 
general sense of his official duties would bind him to the industri- 
ous devotion of his whole time td the public business of the Session, 
the hours which he might be forced to employ for his own justifi- 
cation, would of course be deducted from the discharge of his more 
regular and appropriate functions. Should these occasions fre- 
quH^tly recur, they could not fail to interfere with the due per- 
{^)rmance of the public business. Nor can I forbear to remark the 
tendency of such antagonizing appeals to distract the Councils of 
tlie State in its own Legislature, to destroy its influence, and ex- 
pose it to derision in the presence of its sister States, and to pro- 
duce between the colleagues themselves mutual asperities and 
r.ancours, until the great concerns of the nation would degenerate 
into the puny controversies of personal altercation. 
- It is therefore with extreme reluctance that I enter upon this 
discussion. In developing my own views and the principles which 
have governed my conduct in relation to our foreign affairs, and 
particularly to the Embargo, some very material differences in 



point of fact as well as of opinion, will be found between my state-r. 
Dients, and those of the letter, which alone can apologize for this. 
They -vvill not, I trust, be deemed in any degree disrespectful to the 
writer. Far more pleasing would it have been to me, could that 
honest and anxious pursuit of the policy best calculated to promote 
the honour and welfare of our Country, which, I trust, is felt with 
equal ardour by us both, have resulted in the same opinions, and 
have given diem the vigour of united exertion. There is a can- 
dour and liberality of conduct and of sentiment due from associates 
in the same public charge, towards each other, necessary to their 
individual reputation, to their common influence, and to their pub- 
lic usefulness. In our republican Government, where the power 
of the nation consists alone in the sympathies of opinion, this recip- 
Tocal deference, this open hearted imputation of honest intentions, 
is the only adamant at once attractive and impenetrable, that can 
bear, unshattered, all the thunder of foreign hostility. Ever since I 
have had the honour of a seat in the National Councils, I have extend- 
ed it to every depavtmcnt of the Govcixnnent. Mowever differing in 
my conclusions, upon questions of the highest moment, from any 
other man, of whatever party, I i\ave never, upon suspicion, impu- 
ted his conduct to corrupt!^, slf tMs confidence argues ignorance 
of public men and public . affairs, to that ignorance I must plead^ 
guilty. I know, indeed, eho»gh of human nature to be sensible 
that vigilant observation is ^t all times, and that suspicion may oc- 
casionally become neccfcary, up<m tki^ conduct of jhen in power. 
But I know as well th^^onfide||P^ ^nlli| only cemeiiit of an elec- 
tive government — Elf ction is tne very test of confidence— and its 
periodical return is the constitution aT» check upon its abuse ; of 
which the electors miisi of course be tne sole judges. 'For the ex- 
ercise of pov/er, where. mail is frec,^ confii=lence is inSispensible— 
and when it once 6)tally fails-^-whe^ fc*J-nicn to v/hom the people 
have committed the application of th fir force, fm- their benefit, are 
to be presumed the vilest ^ofmaafe^cl, the very foundation of the 
social compact must be dissolved. Towards tlie .Gentleman whose 
official station results from th% confidence of the same Legislsfture 
by whose appointment I have the.Hbi-kour of holding a similar trust, 
I have thought this confidence peculiarly due from me, nor sh«||ld 
I now notice his letter, notwithstanding the disapprobation it so ob- 
viously implies at the course which I have pursued in relation to the. 
subjects of which it treats, did it not appear to me calculated to pro-, 
duce upon the public mind, impressions unfavourable to the rights^ 
and interests of the nation. 

Having understood that a motion in the Senate of Massachu-. 
setts was made by you, requesting the Governor to transmit Mr. 
Pickering's letter to the Legislature, together with such commu- 
nications, relating to public affairs, as he might have received 
from me, I avail myself of that circiTiiiStance? and of the friend- 



ship which has so long subsisted between us, to take the liberty of 
addressing this letter, intended for publication, to you. Very fevf 
of the facts which I shall state will rest upon information peculiar 
to myself — Most of them will stand upon the basis of official docu- 
ments, or of public and undisputed notoriety. For my opinions, 
tholigh fully persuaded, that even where differing from your own, 
they will meet with a fair and liberal judge in you, yet of the public 
I ask neither favour nor indulgence. Pretending to no extraordi- 
nary credit from the authority of the writer, I am sensible tliey 
must fall by their own weakness, or stand by their own strength. 

The first remark which obtrudes itself upon the mind, on the 
perusal of Mr. Pickering's letter is, that in enumerating all the fire- 
tences (for he thinks there are no causes) for the Embargo, and for 
a War with Great Britain, he has totally omitted the British orders 
of Council of November 1 1, 1807, those orders, under which mil- 
lions of the property uf ovif fellow citlzene are ROW detained in 
British hands, or confiscated to British captors ; those orders, under 
ivhich tenfold as many millions of the same property would have 
ibeen at this moment in the same predicament, had they not been 
saved from exposure to it by the Embargo ; those orders, which if 
bhce submitted to and eaiTied .^^tne extent of their principles) 
would not have left an inch of 'Ahierican canvass upon the ocean, 
but under British licence and British taxation. An attentive rea- 
der of the letter, without otJai^»p4nf)Drniation, would not even suspect 
their existence.|, They arelndeed ifS|a»flLor two passages, faintly, 
and darkly aWucied to under the justifyii^ description of" the or- 
ders of the British Government, retaliating the French imperial 
decree :" but as causes for theffembargo, or as possible causes or 
e\enfiretences of War with Gne^Gritain, they are not only unno- 
ticed, but theiV'siuery existence is i •, direct implication denied. 

It is indeed true, that thes6 orders were not officially communi- 
cated with the President's Message recommending the Embargo. 
They had not been officially received— -But they were announced 
in several paragraphs from London and Liverpool Newspapers of 
the Ipth, 11th, and 12th of November, which appeared in the Na- 
tionM Intelligencer of 18th December, the day upon which the 
Embargo Message was sent to Congress. I'Jhe British Govern- 
ment had taken care that they should not be authentically known 
before their time — for the very same Newspapers which gave this 
inofficial notice of these orders, announced also the departure of Mr. 
Rose, upon a special mission to the United States. And we now 
know that of these all-devouring instruments of rapine, Mr. Rose 
■was not even informed. — His mission was professedly a mission 
of conciliation and reparation for a flagrant — enormous — acknowl- 
edged outrage. — But he w^as not sent with these orders of Council 
in his hands — His text, was the disavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
conduct— ♦The Goaunentary was to be disjcoyefed on another page 



8 

cftlie British ministerial policy — On the face of Mr. Rose's in- 
structions, these orders of Council were as invisible. ^& they are oh 
that of Mr. Pickering's letter. 

They were not merely without official authenticity. Rumours 
had for several weeks been in circulation, derived from English 
prints, and from private correspondences, that such orders were to 
issue ; and no inconsiderable pains were taken here to discredit 
the fact. Assurances were given that there was reason to believe 
no such orders to be contennplated. Suspicion was lulled by de- 
clarations equivalent nearly to a positive denial : and these opiates 
were continued for weeks after the Embargo was laid, until Mr. 
Erskine received instructions to make the official communication 
of the orders themselves, in their proper shape, to our Govern- 
ment. 

Yet, although thus unauthenticated, and even although thus in 
some sort denied, the probatilllty oftne ciscumstances uader which 
they were announced, and the sweeping tendency of their effects, 
formed to my understanding a powerful motive, and together with 
the papers sent by the President) and his express recommendation, 
a decisive one, for assenting tt the Embargo. As a precautionary 
measure, I believed it would tdScue aft immense property from 
depredation, if the orders should prove authentic. If the alarm 
was groundless, it must very soon be disproved, and the Embai'go 
might be removed with the danger.""^ *# 

The omission of all ntTtiCe of these facts in thfi pressing inqui- 
ries " why the Embargo i(|ras laid ?" is the more surprising, be- 
cause they are of all the fticts, the most material, upon a fair and 
impartial examination of the expediency of that Act, when it pass- 
ed — And because these orders, together Atith the sul^sequent " re- 
taliating decrees of France and Si)ain, have furnished the only rea- 
sons upon which I have acquiesced in its continuance to this day. 
If duly weighed, they will sav^ us the trouble of resorting'to jeal- 
ousies of secret corruption, and the imaginary terrors of Naik)leon 
for the real cause of the Embargo. These are fictions of foreign in- 
vention — The French Emperor had not declared that he woul^^iave 
no neutrals~He had wo ^ required that our ports should be shut 
against British Con^jkerce— .but the orders of Council if submitted 
to would have degMed us to the condition of Colonies. If re- 
sisted would have fattened the wolves of plunder with our spoils. 
The Embargo was the only shelter from the Tempest — the last 
refuge of our violated Peace. 

' I have indeed been myself of opinion that the Embargo, must 
in its nature be a temporary expedient, and that preparations man- 
ifesting a determination of resistance against these outrageous vio- 
lations of our neutral rights, ought at least to have been made a 
subject of serious deliberation in Congress. I have believed and 
do still believe that our internal resources are' competent to the 



festablishment and maintenance of a naval force public and private ^ 
if not fully adequate to the protection and defence of our Com- 
merce, at least sufficient to induce a retreat from these hostilities, 
and to deter from a renewal of them, by either of the M-arring par- 
ties ; and that a system to that effect might be formed, ultimately 
far more economical, and certainly more energetic than a three 
years Embargo. Very soon after the closure of our Ports, I did 
submit to the consideration of the Senate, a proposition for the ap- 
pointment of a committee to institute an inquiry to this end. But 
my resolution met no encouragement. . Attempts of a similar na- 
ture have been made in the House of Representatives, but have 
been equally discountenanced, and from these determinations by 
<ieeided majorities of both houses, I am not sufficiently confident in 
the superiority of my own wisdom to appeal, by a topical applica- 
tion to the congenial feelings of any one — nOt even of my own na- 
tive Section of the Union. 

Th^ Embargo, however, is a restriction always under our own 
controul. It was a measure altogether of defence, and of experi- 
ment — If it v/as injudiciously or over-hastily laid, it has been every 
day since 'its ad^iijj^pn open to a re^^eal : if it should prove ineffec- 
tual for the purposes Avhich it v/as meant to secure, a single day 
will suffice to unbar the doors. ' Still believing it a measure justi- 
^ed by the circumstances of the time, I am ready to cidmit that 
those who thought otherwise may havfe had a Vvdser foresight of 
events, and a sounder judgment ofthe then existing state of things 
than the majority of the National Legislature, and the President, 
It has been approved by several of the State Legislatures, and 
among the rest by our own., Thlt of all its effects we are still unable to 
judge with certainty. It ihilB'^ still abide the test of futurity. I 
shall add that there were other motives which had their opera- 
tion bk contributing to the passage ofthe act, unnoticed by Mr. Pick- 
eriijl, and which having now ceased, will also be left unnoticed 
bygfee. The orders of Council of 11th Nov. still subsist in all 
their force ; and are now confirmed, Avith the addition of taxatwi^ 
bgtect of Parliament. 

As they stand in front of the real causes for the Embargo, so 
they are entitled to the same pre-eminence in enumerating the 
causes of hostility, which the British Ministers are accumulating 
upon our forbearance; They strike at the root of our indepen- 
dence. They assume the principle, that we shall havfe no com- 
merce in time of war, but with her dominions, and as tributaries 
to her. The exclusive confinement of commerce to the mother 
country, is the great principle of the modern colonial system z 
and should we by a dereliction of onr rights at this momentous 
stride of encroachment, surrender our commercial freedom with- 
out a struggle, Britain has but a single step more to take, and she 
brings us back to the stamp act and the tea tax. 
B 



10 

Yet these ordersi--thus fatal to the liberties for which the sages 
and heroes of our revolution toiled and bled— thus studiously con- 
cealed until the moment when they burst upon our heads — thus 
issued at the very instant when a mission of atonement was pro- 
fessedly sent— .in these orders we are to see nothing but a " retal- 
iating order upon France" — in these orders we must not find so 
much as a cause — ^nay, not so much as a pretence, for complaint 
against Britain. 

To my mind, Sir, in comparison with those orders, the three 
causes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly limits our grounds for a 
rupture with England, might indeed justly be denominated /zre/e/z- 
f f6---in comparison with them, former aggressions sink into insig- 
nificance. To argue upon the subject of our disputes with Britain, 
or upon the motives for the Embargo, and keep them out of sight, 
is like laying your finger over the unit before a series of noughts, 
and then arithmetically proving tVmt th&y ail feinic^uut to nothing. 

It is not however in a mere omission, nor yet in the history of 
the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the statement I am exam- 
ining have given me the most serious concern — it is in the view 
taken of the questions in controversy between us and Britain. The 
-wisdom of the Embargo is a question of great, but transient magni- 
tude, mid omission sacrifices no national right. Mr. Pickering's 
object was to dissuade the nation from a war with England, into 
which he suspected the administration was plunging us, under 
French compulsion. But Uie tendency of his pamphlet is to re- 
jconcile the nation, or at leasl the commercial States, to the- .servi- 
tude of British protection, and war with all the rest of Europe. 
Hence England is represented as conte^nding for the common lib- 
erties of mankind, and our only safe-guard against the ambition 
^nd injustice of Fiance. Hence all our sensibilities are invoked 
in her favour, and all our antipathies against her antagonist. Uence 
too all the subjects of differences between us and Britain aifje al- 
ledgedto be on our part mere /iretences^ of which the 7iif/it i^jtom- 
equivocally pi^nounced to be on her side. Proceeding from a Ben- 
ator of the United States, specially charged as a member of^e 
executive with the maintenance of the nation's rights^ against for- 
eign powers, and at a moment extremely critical of pending ne- 
gotiation upon all the points thus delineated, this formal abandon- 
mcnt of the American cause, this summons of unconditional sur- 
render to the pretensions of our antagonist, is in my mind highly 
alarming. It becomes therefore a duty to which every other con- 
sideration must yield, to point out the errors of this representation. 
Before we strike the standard of the nation, let us at least examine 
the purport of the summons. 

And first, with respect to the impressment of our seamen. We 
are told that " the taking of British seamen found on board our 
merchant vessels, by British ships of war, is agreeably to a right-^ 



11 

claimed and exercised for ages.'* It is obvious that this claim an(i 
exercise of ages, could not apply to us, as an independent people. 
If the right was claimed and exercised while our vessels M-ere 
navigating under the British flag, it could not authorize the same 
claim when their owners have become the citizens of a sovereign 
state. As a relict of colonial servitude, whatever may be the claim 
of Great Britain, it surely can be no ground, for contending that it 
is entitled to our submission. 

If it be meant that the right has been claiaiied and exercised for- 
ages over the merchant vessels of other nations, I apprehend it is 
a mistake. The case never occurred with sufficient frequency to, 
constitute even a practice, much less aright. If it had been either, 
it would have been noticed by some of the writers on the laws of 
nations. The truth is, the cpiestion aro.se out of American Inde- 
pendence— ^f^rom the severance of one nation into two. It was nev- 
er made a question between any other nations. There is there-. 
fore no right of prescription. 

But, it seems, it has. also been claimed and cjrsrcised, during the 
■whole of the three Administrations of our National Government, 
And is it meant- to be asserted that this claim and exercise consti- 
tute a right ? If it is, I appeal to the uniform, unceasing and ur- 
gent remonstrances of the three Administi'ations— I appeal not 
only to the 'warm feelings, but cool justice of the American Peo-. 
ple-^-nay, I appeal to the sound sense and honourable sentiment of 
the Britijbh nation itself, which,, however it may have submitted at 
home to this practice, never would tolerate its sanction by law, 
against the assertion. If it is. not,, how can it be affirmed that it is 
on our part a mere pretence ? 

But 'the first merchant of the United States, in answer to Mr. 
Pickering's late inquiries has informed him that since the affair 
of the Chesapeake there has been no cause of complaint — that he 
coi^ not find a single instance -wdiere they had taken one man out 
of a merchant vessel. Who it is, that enjoys the dignity of first 
merchant of the United ^tg:es we are not informed. But if he 
had applied to many merchants in Boston as respectable as any 
in the United States, they could have told him of a valuable vessel 
and cargo, totally lost upon the coast of England, late in Aug:ust 
last, and solely in consequence of ha¥ing had tv\ro.of her men, na- 
^ve Americans taken frojG: her by impressment, two months after 
tb.e affair of the Chesapeake. 

Oa the I5th of October, the king of England issued his proclama- 
tion, commanding his naval officers to impress his subjects from 
neutral vessels. This proclamation is represented as merely " re- 
quiring the return of his subjects, the seamen especially, from for- 
eign countries," and tJien " it is an acknowledged principle that 
every nation has a right to the service of its subjects in time of war.'* 
Is this, Sir, a correct statement either of the Proclamation, or of 



12 

the question it involves in which our right is concerned ? The kin.c^ 
of England's right to the service of his subjects in time of war is 
nothing to us. The question is, whether he has a right to seize 
them forcibly on board of our vessels while under contract of ser- 
vice to our citizens, within our jurisdiction upon the high seas ? 
And whether he has a right expressly to command his naval officers 
so to seize them— Is this an acknowledged principle ? certainly not. 
Why then is this Proclamation described as founded upon uncon- 
tested principle ? and why is the command, so justly offensive to 
XI s, and so mischievous as it might then have been made in execution, 
altogether omitted ? 

But it is not the taking of British subjects from our vessels, it is 
the taking under colour of that pretence our own, native American 
citizens, which constitutes the most galling aggravation of this 
merciless practice. Yet even this, we are told is but a pretence-— 
for three reasons. 

1. Because the number of citizens thus taken, is small. 

2. Because it arises only from the impossibility of distinguishing 
Englishmen fi'om Americans. 

3. Because, such impressed American citizens are delivered 
up, on duly authenticated proof. 

1. Small and great in point of numbers are relative terms. To^ 
suppose that the native Americans form a small proportion of the 
"whole number impressed is a m:istake— -The reverse is the fact. 
Examine the official returns from the Department of State. They 
give the names of between four and five thousand men impressed 
since the commencement of the present War. Of which number 
not one fifth part were British Subjects: — ^^The number of naturali- 
zed Americans could not amount to one tenth, — I hazard little in 
saying that more than three fourths were native Americans. If it 
be said that some of these men, though appearing on the face of 
the -returns American Citizens, were really British Subjects, ^^apd 
had fraudulently procured their protections : I reply that this 
number must be far exceeded by the c&ses of Citizens impressed, 
which never reach the Department of State. The American 
Consul in London estimates the number of impressments dur- 
ing the War at nearly three times the amount of the names return- 
ed. If the nature of the offence be conside^^an its true colours, • 
to a people having a just sense of personal's ;«ierty find security,, 
it is in every single instance, of a malignity not inferior to that o»^- 
murder. The* very same act, when committed by the recruiting 
officer of one nation within the territories of another, is by the uni- 
versal Law and usage of Nations punished with death. Suppose 
the crime had in every instance, as by its consequences it has been 
in many, deliberate murder. Would it answer or silence the voice 
pf our complaints to be told that the number was small ? 



13 

2. The impossibility of distinguishing English from American 
seamen is not the only, nor even the most frequent occasion of im- 
pressment. Look again into the returns from the Department of 
State — you will see that the officers take our men without pre- 
tending to inquire where they were born ; sometimes merely 
to sftow their animosity, or their contempt for our country ; some- , 
times from the wantonness of power. When they manifest the. 
most tender regard for the neutral rights of America, they lament 
that they want the men. They regret the necessity, but they musf" 
have their compliment. When we complain of these enormities, 
we are answered that the acts of such officers were unauthorized ; 
that the commanders ofMenof War, are an unruly set of men, for 
whose violence their owtt Government cannot always be answera- 
ble ; that inquiry shall be made — A Court Martial is sometimes- 
mentioned — And the issue of Whitby's Court Martial has taught 
us what relief is to be expected from that. There are even exam- 
ples I am told, when such officers have been put upon the yellow 
list. But this is a I'aro exiceptinn— The ordinary issue when the 
act is disavowed, is the promotion of the actor. 

3. The impressed native American Citizens however, upon duly 
authenticated jiroof 2c;:^ delivered up. Indeed 1 how unreasonable 
then were complaint ! hoAv effectual a remedy for the wrong ! An 
American vessel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four 
native Americans impressed by a British Man of War, bound to 
the East or West Indies. When the American Captain arrives at 
his port of destination he makes his protest, and sends it to the 
nearest American Minister or Consul. When he returns home,^ 
he transmits the duplicate of his protest to the Secretary of State. 
In process of time, the names of the impressed men, and of the 
Ship into which they have been impressed, are received by the 
Agent in London. He makes his demand that the men may be 
delivered up — The Lords of the Admiralty, after a reasonable time 
for inquiry and advisement, return for answer, that the Ship is on 
a foreign station, and their Lordships can therefore take no further 
steps in the matter— Or, that the ship has been taken, and that the 
men have been received in exchange for French prisoners — -Or, 
that the men had no protections (the impressing officers oftea 
having taken them from the nnen) — Or, that the men were jirobably 
British subjects. Or, that they have entered and taken the Boun- 
ty ; (to which the officers know how to reduce them.) Or that 
they have been married, or settled in England. In all these cases, 
without further ceremony, their discharge is refused. Sometimes 
their Lordships, in a vein of humour, inform the agent that the 
man has been discharged as unserviceable. Sometimes, in a sterner 
tone, they say he was an imfioster. Or perhaps by way of conso- 
lation to his relatives and friends, they report that he has fallen in 
Battle, against nations in amity with his Country. Sometimes 



14> 

fliey cooly return that there is no such ma7t on board the shift j? 
and what has become of him, the agonies of a wife and children iii 
his native land may be left to conjecture. When all these and 
many other such apologies for refusal fail, the native American 
seaman is discharged^ — and when by the charitable aid of his Gov- 
ernment he has found his way home, he comes to be informed^ 
that all is as it should be — that the number of his fellow-sufferers 
is small — that it was impossible to distinguish him from an En- 
glishman- — and that he was delivered up, on duly authenticated^ 
firoof. 

Enough of this disgusting subject- — I cannot stop to calculate how 
many of these wretched victims are natives of Massachusetts, and: 
how many natives of Virginia — I cannot stop to solve that knotty 
question of national jurisprudence whether some of them might 
not possibly be slaves, and therefore not Citizens of the United 
States— I cannot stay to account for the wonder, why poor, and ig- 
norant, and friendless, as most of them are, the voice of tlieir com- 
plaints is so seldom heard in the great navigating States. I ad- 
nait that we have endured this cruel indignity through all the 
Administrations of the General Governmfent. I acknowledge that 
Britain claims the right of seizing her subjects in our merchant 
vessels, and that even if we could acknowledge it, the line of dis- 
crimination would be difficult to draw. We are not in a condition 
to maintain this right by War, and as the British Government 
have been more than once on the point of giving it up of their own 
accord, I would still hope for the day when returning justice shall 
induce them to abandon it without compulsion. Her subjects we 
clo not want. The degree of protection which we are bound to 
extend to them, cannot equal the claim of our own citizens. I, 
•would subscribe to any compromise of this contest, consistent with 
the rights of sovereignty, the duties of humanity, and the princi- 
ples of reciprocity : but to the right of forcing even her own sub- 
jects out of our merchant vessels on the high seas I never can 
assent. 

The second point upon which Mr. Pickering defends the pre- 
tensions of Great Britain, is her denial to neutral nations of the right 
of prosecuting with her enemies and their colonies, any commerce 
from which they are excluded in time of tteace. His statement of 
this case adopts the British doctrine, as ^nd. The right ^ as on 
the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders at discretion — 
and it is equally defective in point of fact. 

In the first place, the claim of Great Britain, is not to " a right 
of imposing on this neutral commerce some limits and restraints^* — 
but of interdicting it altogether, at her pleasure ; of interdicting it 
without a moment's notice to neutrals, after solemji decisions of 
her courts of Admiralty, and formal acknowledgments of her min- 
isters, that it is a lawful trade — And, on such a sudden, unnotified 



15 

interdiction, of pouncin;^ upon all neutral commerce navigating 
upon the faith of her decisions and acknowledgments, and of gorg- 
ing with confiscation the greediness of her cruizers — This is the 
right claimed by Britain — This is the power she has exercised — 
"What Mr. Pickering calls " limits and restraints," she calls relax- 
ations of her right. 

It is but little more than tAvo years, since this question was agi- 
tated both in England and America, with as much zeal, energy 
and ability, as ever was displayed upon any question of national 
JL.aw. The British side was supported by Sir William Scott, Mr. 
"Ward, and the author of War in Disguise. But even in Britain 
tlieir doctrine w^as refut-ed to demonstration by the Edinburg re- 
Tiewers. In America, the rights of our country were maintained 
by numerous writers profoundly skilled in the science of national 
and maritime Law. The Answer to War in Disguise was ascri- 
bed to a Qentlemnn whose talents are universally acknowledged, 
Jind who by his official situations had been required thoroughly to 
investigate every question of conflict between neutral and bellige- 
rent rights which has occurred in the history of modern War. 
JVIr. Gore and Mr. Pinckney, our two commissioners at London, 
under Mr. Jay's Treaty, the former, in a train of cool and conclusive 
argument addressed to Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of 
splendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore, supported 
the same cause. Memorials drawn by Lawyers, of distinguished 
eminence, by Merchants of the highest character, and by states- 
3"ncn of long experience in our national councils, came from Salem, 
from Boston, from New-Haven, from New-York and from Phila- 
delphia, together with remonstrances to the same effect from New- 
buryport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston. This accumulated 
iTiass of legal learning, of commercial information, and of national 
sentiment from almost every inhabited spot upon our shores, and 
from one extremity of the union to the other, confirmed by the 
\inanswered and unanswerable memorial of Mr. Munroe tothe Brit- 
ish minister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible reason- 
ing of the examination of the British doctrine, was also made a 
subject of full and deliberate discussion in tlie Senate of the United 
States. A committee of seven members of that body after three 
weeks of arduous investigation, reported three Resolutions, the first 
of which was in these words — " Resolved, that the capture and 
condemnation, under the orders of the British Government, and ad- 
judications of their Courts of Admiralty of American vessels and 
their cargoes, on the pretext of their being employed in a trade with 
the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an un- 
provoked aggression upon the property of the citizens of these 
United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroach^ 
ment ajion their national Independence," 



u 

. On the 13th of February, 1806, the question iqj>on the ad5j>^ 
tion of this Resolution, was taken in the Senate. The yeas and 
nays vrere required ; but not a solitary nuy was heard in. answer. 
It was adopted by the unanimous voice of all the Senatc^-s present. 
They were twenty-eight in number, and among them stands re- 
corded the name of Mr. Pickering. 

Let us remember that this was a question most peculiarly and 
immediately of commercial^ and not agricultural interest ; that it 
arose from a call, loud, energetic and unanimous, from, all the 
Merchants of the United States upon Congress, for the national 
interpcsition ; that many of the memorials invoked all the energy 
of the Legislature, and pledged the lives and prbperties of the 
jnembrialists in support of any measures which Congress might 
fleem necessary to vindicate those rights'. Negotiation was par- 
ticularly recommended from Boston and elsowhere-^negotiation 
was adopted — ^negotiatioh has failed— a -nH now Mr. Pickering tells 
us that Great Britain has claimed and maintained her right ! He 
argues that her claim is just-^and is not sparing of censure upon 
those who still consider it as a serious cause of complaint. 

But there was one point of view in which the British doctrine on 
this question was then only considered incidentally ill the United 
Statesi— because it was not deemed material for the discussion of, 
our rights. We examined it chiefly as affectihg the principles as 
between a belligerent and a neutral power. But in fact it was an 
infringetnent of the rights of War, as well as of the rights of Peace. 
It was an unjustifiable enlargement of the sphere of hostile Opera- 
tions. The enemies of Great Britain had by the universal Law of 
Nations a right to the benefits of neutral commerce within their 
dominions (subject to the exceptions of actual blockade and con- 
traband) as well as neutral nations had a right to trade with them. 
The exclusion from that commerce by this new principle of war- 
fare which Britain, in defiance of all immemorial national usages, 
undertook by her single authority to establish, but too naturally led 
her enemies to resort to new and extraordinary principles, by 
which in their turn they might retaliate this injury upon her. The 
pretence upon which Britain in the first ifistance had attempted t6 
colour her injustice, was a miserable 7?c^zow---^It was an argument 
against fact. • Her reasoning was, that a neutral vessel by mere ad- 
mission in time of war, into Ports from which it would have been 
excluded in time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national 
character, and ipso facto was transformed into enemy's property. 

Such was the basis upon which arose the far famed rule of the 
war of 1756 — -Such was the foundation upon which Britain claimed 
and maintained this supposed right of adding that nevi^ instrument 
of desolation to the horrors of war— It was distressing to her ene- 
my — yes ! Had she adopted the practice of dealing with them in 
poison — &iid Mrr Fox accepted the services of the maj^i who offers 



11 

pA to rid him of the French Emperor by assassination, and had 
the attempt succeeded, it would have been less distressing to 
France than this rule of the war of 1756 ; and not more unjustifi- 
abler Mr. Fox had too fair a mind for either, but his comprehen- 
sive and liberal spirit was discarded, with the Cabinet which he 
had formed. . 

It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, and above all 
bf Christianity for two thousand years, to mitigate the rigours of 
that scourge of human kind, war. It is now the struggle of Britain 
to aggravate them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its 
effects, was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it was possible 
for her to tinge the weapons of her hostility. 

In itself and its effects, I say — For the French decrees of Berlin 
and of Milan, the Spanish and Dutch decrees of the same or the 
like tenor, and her own orders of January and November— These? 
alternations of licenced pillage, this eager competition between her 
and her eneiTcii^s for the honour of e:iving the last stroke to the vi- 
tals of maritime neutrality, all are justly attribiuable to her assump- 
tion and exercise of this single principle. The rule of the War 
of 175 6 was the root, irom which all the rest are but suckers, still 
at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. 

In the last decrees of Fraiice and Spain, her own ingenious fic- 
tion is adopted ; and under them, every neutral vessel that submits 
to English search, has been carried into an English port, or paid a 
tax to the English Govisrnment, is declared denationalized, that is, 
to have lost her national character, and to have become Englisti. 
property. This is cruel in execution ; absurd in argument. To 
refute it were folly, for to the understanding of a child it refutes 
itself. But it is the reasoning of British Jurists. It is the simple 
application to the circumstances and powers of Frarice, of the rule of 
the war of 1756. 

I am jnot the apologist of France and Spain ; I have no national 
partialities ; no national attachments but to my own country. I 
shall never undertake to justify or to paliate the insults or injuries 
of any foreign power to that country which is dearer to me than 
life. If the voice of Reason and of Justice could be heard by 
France and Spain, they would say — you have done wrong to make 
the injustice of your enemy towards neutrals the measure of your 
own. If she chastises with whips do not you chastise with Scor- 
pions.^— 'Whether France would listen to this langiiage, I know 
not. The most enormous infractions of our rights hitherto com- 
mitted by her, have been more in menace than in accomplishment. 
The alarm has been justly great ; the anticipation threatening ; 
but the amount of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can we 
say r If we attempt to raise our voices, her Minister has declared 
to Mr. Pinckney that she will not hear. The only reason she as- 
signs for her recent orders of Council is> that France proceeds on 
C 



18 

the same principles* It is not by the light of blazing temples, atid 
amid the groans of Tvomen and children perishhig in the ruins of 
the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at Copenhagen, that we can 
expect oiir remonstrances against this course of proceeding will 
be heard. 

Let us come to the third and last of the causes of complaint, 
which are represented as so frivolous and so unfounded-**." the un- 
fortunate affair of the Chesapeake.'* The orders of Admiral Berk- 
ley, under which this outrage was committed, have been disavow- 
ed by his Government. General professions of a willingness t6 
jmake reparation for it, have be-en lavished in profusion ; and we 
are now instructed to take these professions for endeavours ; to be- 
lieve them sincere, because his Britannic Majesty sent us a special 
£nvoy ; and to cast the odium of defeating these endeavours upoii 
our own Government. 

I have already told you, that 1 am not one of those who deem 
suspicion and distrust, ni tHo liigrKoot order vf political virtues. 
Baseless suspicion is, in my estimation, a vice, as pernicious in the 
management of public affairs, as it is fatal to the happiness of do* 
:mestic life. When, therefore, th6 British Ministers have declarc(| 
their disposition to make ample reparation for an injury of a most 
attrocious character, committed by an officer of high rank, and, as 
they say, utterly without authority, I should most readily believe 
them-, were their professions not possitivcly contradicted by facts 
©f more pov/erful eloquence than words. 

Have such facts occiu'red ? I will not again allude to t3ie circum- 
stances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his mission at such a precise 
point of time, that his Commission and the orders of Council of 11th 
November, might have been signed with the same penful of ink. 
The subjects were not immediately connected with each other, 
and his Majesty did not choose to associate distinct topics of nego- 
tiation. The attack upon the Chesapeake was disavowed ; and 
ample reparation was withheld only, because with the demand for 
satisfaction upon that injury, the American Government had coup- 
led a demand for the cessation of others ; alike in kind, but of mi- 
nor aggravation. But had reparation really been intended, would 
it not have been offered, not in vagtie and general terms, but in 
precise and specific proposals ? Were any such made ? None. 
But it is said Mr. Munroe was restricted from negotiating upon 
this subject apart ; and therefore Mr. Rose was to be sent to Wash- 
ington ; charged with this single object ; and without authority to 
treat upon or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose arrives — The 
American Government readily determine to treat upon the Chesa- 
peake affair^ separately from all others ; but before Mr. Rose sets 
his foot on shore, in pursuance of a pretension made before by Mr. 
Canning, he connects with the negotiation, a subject far more dis- 
tinct from the butchery of the Chesapeake, than the general im- 



19 

pressment of our seamen ; I mean the Proclamation, interdicting to 
British ships of war, the entrance of our harbours. 

The great obstacle which has always interfered in the adjust- 
ment of our differences with Britain, has been that she would not 
ncquiesce in the only principle uponAvhich fair negociation betwcei^ 
independent nat'ons can be conducted, the principle of reciprocity ; 
that she refuses the application to us of the claim which she asserts 
for herself. The forcible taking of men from an American vessel, 
"vvas an essential part of the outrag-e upon the Chesapeake. It was 
the ostensible purpose for which that act of war unproclaimed, wa$ 
committed. The President's Proclamation was a subsequent act, 
and was avowet41y founded upon many similar aggressions, of which 
that was only the most aggravat^ed. 

If then Britain could with any colour of reason claim that the 
general question of impressment should be laid out of the case alto- 
gether, she ought upon the principle of reciprocity to have laid 
equally pui-r.f the case, the proclamation, a measure so easily sep- 
arable from it, and in its nature merely defensive. When there- 
fore she made the repeal of the Proclamation an indispensible pre- 
liminary to all discussion upon the nature and ex;tent of that repara- 
tion which she had offered, she refused to treat with us upon the foot- 
ing of an independent power. She ihsisted upon an act of self-de- 
gradation on our part, before she would even tell us what re- 
dress she would condescend to grant for a great and acknowledged 
wrong. Tl^is was a condition which she could not but know to be 
inadmissible, and is of itself proof nearly conclusive that her Cabi- 
net never intended to make for that wrong any reparation at all. 

But this is not all. — -It cannot be forgotten that when that attro- 
clous deed was committed, amidst the general burst of indignation 
which resounded from every part of this Union, there Ave re among 
us a small number of persons, who upon the opinion that Berkley's 
orders were authorized by his Government, undertook to justify 
them in their fullest extent. These ideas, probably first propa- 
gated by British official characters in this Country, were persist- 
ed in until the disavowal of the British Government took away 
the necessity for persevering in them, and gave notice where 
the next position was to betaken. This patriotic reasoning how- 
ever had been so satisfactory at Halifax, that complimentary let- 
ters were received from Admiral Berkley himself, highly appro- 
ving the spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking 
how easily Peace^ between the United States and Britain might 
be preserved, if f/^a^ measure of our national rights could be made 
the prevailing standard of the Country. 

When the news arrived in England, although the general senti-. 
ment of the nation was not prepared for the formal avowal and jus- 
tification of this unparalleled aggression, yet there were not Avaht- 
ing persons there, ready to claim and maintain the right of search- 



20 

ing national ships for deserters. — It was said at the time, but for this 
we must of course rest upon the credit of inofficial authority, to have 
been made a serious question in the Cabinet Council ; nor was it5 
determination there ascribed to the eloquence of the gentlemen who 
became the official organ of its communication. Add to this a cir- 
cumstance, which without claiming the irrefragable credence pf a 
diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the common sense of man- 
kind ; that in all the daily newspapers known to be in the rninisterial 
interest, Berkley w^s justified and applauded in every variety of 
form that publication could assume, excepting only that pf official 
Proclamation — The only part of his orders there disapproved was 
the reciprocal offer which he made of submitting his own ships tq 
be searched in retuni—that was very unequivocally disclaimed — . 
The ruffian right of superior force, was the solid base upon whicl:^ 
the claim was asserted, and so familiar was this argument grown 
to the casuists of British national Jurisprudence, that the right of 
a British man of war to search nn Awi<»a<lo«i^ filgmej was to them. 
a self-evident proof against the right of the Anierican frigate to 
search the British man of war. The same tone has been con- 
stantly kept up, until our accounts of latest date ; and have been 
recently further invigorated by a very explicit call for war with 
the United States, which they contend could be of no possible 
injury to Britain, and which they urge upon the ministry as af- 
fording thenx an excellent opportunity to accomplish, a dismem- 
berment of this Union. — These sentiments have even been avow- 
ed in Parliament, where the nobleman who moved the address 
of the house of Lords in answer to the King's speech, declared that 
the right of searching national ships ought to be maintained against 
the Americans, and disclaimed only with respect to European 
Sovereigns. 

In the mean time Admiral Berkley, by a court martial of his 
own subordinate officers, hung one of the men taken from the 
Chesapeake, and called his name Jenkin Ratford.— .There was, 
according to the answer so frequently given by the Lords of the 
Admiralty, upon application for the discharge of impressed Ameri- 
canos, no sue H man on board the sliiji. The man thus executed had 
been taken from the Chesapeake by the name of Wilson. It is 
said that on his trial he was identified by one or or two wit- 
nesses who kncAv him, and that before he was turned off he con- 
fessed his name to be Ratford, and that lie was born in England. 
But it has since been said that Ratford is now living in Pennsyl- 
vania — and after the character whicli the disavowal of Admiral 
Berkley's own government has given to his conduct, what confi- 
dence can be Claimed or due to the proceedings of a court martial 
of his associates held to sanction his proceedings.— The other 
three men had not even been demanded in his orders — They were 
taken by the sole authority of the British searching lieutenant, after 



21 

the surrender of the Chesapeake — There was not the shadow of 
a pretence before the court martial that they were British subjects, 
or born in any of the British dominions. Yetby this court martial 
they were sentenced to suffer death. They were reprieved from, 
execution, only upon condition of renouncing their rights as 
Americans by voluntary service in the King's ships — They have 
never been restored. — To complete the catastrophe with whiclx 
this bloody tragedy w-as concluded, Admiral Berkley himself 
in sanctioning the doom of these men — thus obtained— thus tried—* 
and thus sentenced, read them a grave moral lecture on the enor- 
mity of their crime, in its tendency to provoke a w^ar between the 
United States and Great Britain. 

Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by his government— 
amidst all these professions of readiness to make reparation, not 
a single mark of the slightest disapprobation appears ever to have 
been manifested to that officer. His instructions were executed 
upon the Chesapeake in June — Humours of his recall have been 
circulated here— But on leaving the station at Halifax in Decem- 
ber, he received a complimentary address from the colonial as- 
sembly, and assured them in answer, that he had no official infor- 
mation of his recall.—From thence he went to the West Indies : 
and on leaving Bt»^muda for England in February, %vas addressed 
again by that colonial government in terms of high panegyric 
iipon his energy, with manifest allusion to his atchievment upon the 
iChesapeake« 

Under all these circumstances, without applying any of the 
maxims of a suspicious policy to the British professions, I may- 
still be permitted to believe that their ministry never seriously- 
intended to make us honourable reparation, or indeed any repa- 
ration at ail for that *^ unfortunate affidr." 

It is impossible for any man to forni an accurate idea of the 
British policy towards the United States, without taking into con- 
sideration the state of parties in that government ; and the views, 
characters and opinions of the individuals at their helm of State. 
JV liberal and a hostile policy towards America, are among the 
strongest marks of distinction between the political systems of the 
rival statesmen of that kingdom. The liberal party are reconcil- 
ed to our Independence ; and though extremely tenacious of eve- 
ry right of their own country, are systematically disposed to pre- 
serve p.eace with the United States. Their opponents harbour sen- 
timents of a very different description—Their system is coercion— 
Their object the recovery of their lost dominion in North Amer- 
ica. This party now stands high in power. Although Admiral 
Berkley may never have received written orders from them for 
his enterprize upon the Chesapeake, yet in giving his instructions 
to the squadron at Norfolk, he knew full well under what adminis- 
tration he was acting. Every measure of that administration to- 



22 

i^ai'cls us since that time has been directed to the same purpose-^ 
To break down the spirit of our national Independepce. Their 
Jjurpose, as far as it can be collected from their acts, is .to force 
us into a war with them or with their enemies ; to leave us only 
the bitter alternative of their vengeance or their protection. 

Both these parties are no doubt wijling,that we should join them 

ip the war o'i their nation against France and her allies -The 

late administration would have drawn us into it by treaty, the 
present are attempting it by compulsion. The former would have 
admitted us as allies, the latter will have us no otherwise than as 
colonists. On the late debates in Parliament, the lord chancellor 
freely avowed that the orders of Council of I ith November were 
intended to make Ani£rica at last sensible of th.e policy of joining 
England against France. 

This too, Sir, is the substantial argument of Mr, Pickering's 
letter. — The suspicions of a design in our own administration to 
plunge us into a Avar with ELritnii-i, I ue-t^r Kav*. fcKar©4, Onr ad- 
ininistration have every interest and every motive that can influ- 
ence the conduct of man to deter them from any such purpose. 
Nor have I seen any thing in their measures bearing the slightest 
indication of it. But between a design of war with England, and 
a surrender of our national freedom for the sake of war with the 
rest of jEuropc, there is a material difference. This is the poli- 
cy now in substance recommended to us, and for which the inter- 
position of the commercial States is called. For this, not only- 
are all the outrages o£ Britain to be forgotten, but the very asser- 
tion of our rights is to be branded with odium. — Imlircssment — 
J^feutral trade — British taxation — Every thing that can distinguish 
a state of national freedom from a state of national vassalage, is 
to be surrendered at discretion. In the face of every fact we are 
told to believe every profcrssion — In the midst of evevy itidigniti/ 
we are pointed to British protection as our only shield against 
the universal conqueror. Every phantom of jealousy and fear is 
evoked — The image of France with a scourge in her hand is im- 
pressed into the service, to lash us into the refuge of obedience 
to Britain — insinuations are even made that if Britain " with her 
thousand ships of war," has not destroyed our commerce, it has 
been owing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in 
her name with the " destruction of our fairest cities." 

Not one act of hostility to Britain has been conmiitted by us ; 
she has not a pretenceof that kind to alledge — But if she will wage 
%var upon us, are we to do nothing in our OAvn defence ? If she issues 
orders of universal plunder upon our commerce, are we not to 
withhold it from her grasp ? Is American pillage one of those rights 
which she has claimed and exercised until we are foreclosed from 
any attempt to obstruct its collection ? For what purpose are we 
rec^uircd to make this sacrifice of every thing that can giveval- 



^^ 



^ur to the name of freemen, this abandonment of the very right 
of self-preservation ? Is it to avoid a war ? — Alas ! Sir, it does 
iiot offer even this plausible plea for pusillanimity — For, as sub- 
Tnission would make us to all substantial purposes British Colo- 
nies, her enemies would unquestionably treat us as such, and af- 
ter degrading ourselves into voluntary servitude to escape a war 
with her, we should incur inevitible war with all her enemies, 
and be doomed to share the destinies of her conflict with a world 
in arms. 

Between this unqualified submission, and offensive resistance 
agaihst the war upon m^aritime neutrality waged by the concur- 
ring decrees of all the great belligerent powers, the Embargo was 
adopted, and has been hitherto continued. So far was it from be- 
ing dictated by France, that it was calculated to withdraw, and has 
withdrawn from within her reach, all the means of compulsion 
\vhich her subsequent decrees would have put in her possession. 
it has adH«?^ ttx tKp motives both of France and England, for pre- 
serving peace with us, and has dimmisned their inducem.ents to 
war. It has lessened their capacities of inflicting injury upon us 
and given us some preparation for resistance to them — It has taken 
from their violence the lure of interest — It has dashed the phil- 
ter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is distressing to 
ourselves — that it calls for the fortitude of a people, determined 
to maintain their rights, is not to be denied. But the only alter- 
native was between that and war. Whether it will yet save us 
from that calamity, cannot be determined ; but if not, it will pre- 
pare us for the further struggle to which we may be called. Its 
double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for war, in its 
operation upon both the belligerent rivals, is the great advantage, 
which more than outweigh all its evils. 

If any statesman can point out another alternative, I am ready- 
to hear him, and for any practicable expedient to lend him every 
possible assistance. But let not that expedient be, submission to 
trade under British licenses, and British taxation. We are told 
that even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the British 
dominions, to Africa and China, and with the colonies of France, 
Spain and Holland. I ask not how much of this trade would be 
left, when our intercourse with the whole continent of Europe be- 
ing cut off would leave us no means of purchase, and no market 
for sale ? — I ask not, what trade we could enjoy with the colonies 
of nations with which we should be at war ? I ask not how long 
Britain would leave open to us avenues of trade, which even in 
these very orders of Council, she boasts of leaving open as a spe- 
cial itidulgence ? If we yield the principle, we abandon all pretence 
to national sovereignty-— To yearn for the fragments of trade 
which might be left, would be to pine for the crumbs of commer- 
cial SerYitude*«-The boon, which w« should humiiiate cui'selves to 



24 i^ 

accept from British bounty, would soon be 'Withdrawn. Submis- 
sion nevei* yet sat boundaries to encroachment. From pleading 
for half the empire, we should sink into supplicants for l&e — We 
should supplicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fall freemen—^ 
If we must perish, let it be in defence of our rights. 

To conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any necessity for the ex- 
traordinary interference of the commercial States, to controul the 
general Gouncils of the Nation.— ^If any interference could at this 
critical extremity of our affairs have a kindly effect upon our com- 
mon welfare, it would be an interference to promote union and not 
division — to urge mutual confidence, and not universal distrust-— 
to strengthen the arm and not to relax the sinews of the Nation. 
Our suffering and our dangers, though difi'ering perhaps in de- 
gree, are universal in extent. As their causes are justly chargea^ 
ble, so their removal is dependent not upon ourselves, but upon oth- 
ers. But while the spirit of INDEPENDENCE shall continue to 
beat in unison with the pulses of the Nation, no danger \v-rll be tru- 
ly formidable— Our dutioa «iv, w picpure wiin concerted energy 
for those which threaten us, to meet them without dismay, and to 
rely for their issue upon Heaven. 

I am, with great respect and attachment, 

Dear Sir, your friend and humble servant, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Hon, BarrUon Gray Otisi 







011 838 484 2 



